Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was delayed by 530 days. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay with an affidavit, which was not found to be false. The Revenue did not object to the condonation. The appeal was admitted for hearing.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim with relevant documents before the lower authorities, leading to an ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the file of the jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication, with a cost imposed on the assessee due to non-cooperation.
Key Issues
Condonation of delay and restoration of the appeal for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
(�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Manamohan Sahoo Vs ITO, Ward- Puri, Puri Chari Chhak, Rasola, Puri, 752001 PAN No. : ACXPS 7756 G (अपीलाथ� /Appellant) (��यथ� / Respondent) .. �नधा�रती क� ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Pranay Kumar Mishra & Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra राज�व क� ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of Hearing : 04/12/2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 04/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi, dated 19/03/2024 passed in Appeal No.CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2/10277/2019-20 for the assessment year 2017-2018.
The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 530 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported with an affidavit stating therein sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, which are not found to be false. Ld. Sr. DR did not object to condone the delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 530 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and appeal of the assessee is admitted for hearing.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte. It was the prayer that the matter may be restored to the file of the jurisdictional AO to decide the issue involved in the appeal afresh so that the assessee could be able to produce all the evidence to substantiate its claim.
In reply, ld Sr.DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A). It was the submission that if the issue is to be restored to the file of ld.AO, then a cost should be imposed.
We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed from the orders of the authorities below that the assessee could not substantiate its claim by providing relevant documents. Even the assessee was also failed to produce the evidences as required by the ld. CIT(A) and in absence of the same, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. This being so, in the interest of justice, we restored the issues in the appeal to the file of ld. jurisdictional AO for adjudicating afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. However, looking to the non-cooperation of the assessee during the course of appellate proceedings even after issuance of notices to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A), we impose a cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) on the assessee to be payable to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association, Sector-1, CDA, Cuttack-753014, within sixty days from the date of this order and receipt of the same would be produced before the